Pace oldgeezer, the worst inciters are not members of any public, US or Israeli, but members of our government and, in particular, the media like the Globe and the Times.

For decades Americans have been given one side of the story regarding I/P, and the Middle East in general. Over time this led most average citizens to conclude that Palestinians and Arabs really have something wrong with them. After all, those Palestinians were constantly causing trouble for little reason that the average person could see. The endless repetition of pro-Israeli memes has had the effect over time of changing black to white.

This article has a particularly egregious example of this:
"Israel . . . builds settlements on land Palestinians consider theirs..."

It's not a matter of opinion that the land belongs to the Palestinians. First of all, they have lived there for hundreds of years. Second, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza were conquered by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. UN Security Council Resolution 232, which since 1967 has been considered basis for a settlement after the war, alludes to "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Every international body that has ever considered this question - the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the High Contracting Powers to the Geneva Convention, the International Committee of the Red Cross - ALL have said that Israel's settlement of its own population in those territories is illegal. There is not a single nation, apart from Israel, has ever officially said otherwise. Yet we see and hear the repetition of statements like the above daily in our media.

Israel's policy of delay, delay, delay; the creation of facts on the ground under US protection; and repeating the same propaganda over and over, has had an effect. Public discussion, or should I say public discussers, are more pro-Israeli than ever. Yet will this result in a happy ending for Israel? I don't think so.

I remember hearing years ago Jeffrey Goldberg being interviewed by Terry Gross about his recent trip to Lebanon. Goldberg started talking about how most Lebanese were antisemitic. Gross was agreeing with him every step of the way despite the fact that she seems never to have been to Lebanon. Israel's repeated assaults and occupations of Lebanon didn't enter the picture. It sounded like a private kvetching session, not something that belonged on the public airwaves.

Abba, I sympathize with your fears, but I think you have your antennae out way too far. "The lynch death of Leo Frank is an example of the worst treatment"? What's the other comparable example of mistreatment of Jews in the US? That's ONE lynching out of 4,733 recorded by the Tuskegee Institute since 1882.

And when Jeffrey Goldberg is stumped about what to say about Israel, he finds it most comforting to talk about neo-Nazi Trump supporters and the antisemitic British Labor party for good measure.

.

The Labor party has strands of anti-Zionism, but it certainly is NOT antisemitic. That linked NYT article is all about lack of fealty to Israel. The ugly assault on Jeremy Corbyn is spearheaded by supporters of Israel, including Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian. IMO they are the ones disguising their real motivation and intentions, not Corbyn. Corbyn is about as genuine and straightforward as they come.

They also met with the head of the Palestinian civil police in Bethlehem and toured Christian holy sites.

Oh, wow! Toured Christian holy sites. That will certainly help them understand the issues.

As for the rest, they had a one hour meeting with that Palestinian police chief to balance their 20 meetings with Israelis over 7 days. Plus all of those breakfasts, luncheons and dinners mingling with their wonderful hosts. Yes, they certainly were exposed to all sides.

This kind of training/indoctrination is disgraceful. One of the worst things that has happened to our country since 911 is the adoption of Israeli behavior and tropes.

Here is a thoughtful report . . . I invite anyone who cares enough to be bothered to actually read the list for oneself and apply critical thinking skills.

I did glance at your link, hosted by the thoughtful ngo-monitor.org, among whose International Advisory Board members are the uber-thoughtful Elliot Abram, James Woolsey, and Alan Dershowitz.

I applied critical thinking skills. I found that, contrary to the NGO Monitor's opinion, I do find discriminatory Israel's refusal to grant citizenship to the West-Bank spouses of Israeli citizens when, according to Wikipedia, "Israel traditionally automatically granted citizenship to spouses of Jewish Israeli citizens".

I found it very interesting that NGO Monitor chose not to mention the most egregious discriminatory law. This is the Right of Return, whereby any Jew may immigrate to Israel even if he has no blood connection to the place, while no exiled Palestinian may return to Israel despite being born there.

which implored me to download a critical Firefox update immediately by clicking a button. I can imagine what might happen if I did. (I deleted a couple of characters from the above for safety).

Funny how often malware is deposited on pro-Palestinian sites, or, failing that, how often those sites are falsely reported to to web security sites as dangerous. It's all in support of thoughtful critical analysis!

Bill Clinton's remarks were horrendously anti-Muslim. As the OP noted, they placed American Muslims in the category of "other" whose presence in their own country is conditional. (Note that 81% of Muslims in this country are US citizens).

I'm not interested in demonizing anyone. I'm simply interested in pointing out the truth. The truth is that Bill Clinton has treated Muslims despicably (note the sanctions on Iraq and his unwavering support for Israel no matter what). His wife is a firm friend of Netanyahu. In my case I intend to hold my nose hard and vote for her, but let's us keep our eyes open here.

Steven Davidson, thank you for this engrossing narrative. I have hardly ever seen anything written by. for, or about the Druse in Israel, despite the fact that they are famously almost the only Palestinian inhabitants in Israel to serve in the armed forces. Most interesting.

Everybody will pay if Trump is elected. And depths to which he'd drag the country will make HRC's ilk a more appealing alternative.

I don't trust Clinton to carry out much of the Sanders platform. I don't think she'll be a good President. However, we do have to think of the alternative. We can't let the worst be the enemy of the pretty bad.

I’m going to guess that this 17 year old (or the other ones that are egged on to commit these crimes) knows nothing about occupation of which land or which border belongs to whom or who lived where and when.

I would guess that this 17 year old did know that his country is illegally occupied by the inhabitants of Kiryat Arba. This is also the conclusion of the UN Security Council and the World Court. It 's only here in the US that there's such deliberate obfuscation and amnesia about "which border belongs to who".

This was obviously a terrible act, worthy of condemnation. But you can't dismiss context and motive, in this or in any event. Kiryat Arba is an illegal settlement under international law, like every settlement in the West Bank. Its inhabitants are notorious for their ugly behavior towards the Palestinians whose land they occupy.

Its sobering to contrast the enormous hue and cry shaking the rafters over this crime, to the radio silence that ensued in the US after an Israeli officer used a Palestinian 13 year old girl for target practice in 2004.

Until recently I lived in Massachusetts. Plenty of Republicans there insisted that Senator Warren lied about having Native American ancestry. None of them provided any proof, to my recollection. Do you have any proof? If so, could you please post it?

Phil, I think that most Americans, like most human beings, look up to anyone who genuinely acts as a true moral preceptor.

One current example of this is the admiration flowing towards the cowboy who roped a bike thief in Oregon yesterday. The cowboy, Robert Borba, said "Poor gal's bike. Could have been her only means of transportation, I dunno. Stealing it ain't right".

That's a pretty good moral precept from someone who demonstrated he has the status to make one.

On the other hand, I highly doubt that most Americans really see Jews as such as moral preceptors. I certainly don't.

barmalei, it's easy to be pretend to be the rational one when your power is incomparably greater than your opponent's.

The relationship between Israel and Palestinians reminds me of my relationship with my little brother when I was nine and he was six. At times I would tease him to the point where he would just lose it and attack me. Of course, I weighed twice as much as him so his attempts to hurt me never came to much. But I felt quite superior about my greater rationality.

In terms of power and control, Israel is not twice the size but 100 times the size of the Palestinians. Casualty figures reflect this. I well recall the news coverage of the 1996 Israeli assault on Lebanon. In Lebanon, ambulances burning, hundreds of thousands fleeing in terror. In Israel, repeated sympathetic interviews with inhabitants of Kiryat Shmona about how difficult it was to sit in shelters all day long.

I took the trouble to actually check the UN Human Development Index and found that Lebanon is distinctly ahead of Palestine in the index.

I also thought the presentation was emotional and one-sided. Yes, it does make a difference how a number like 30,000 Palestinian children killed is derived. At the same time, your voice addressing Leanne Mohamed is similar to mine addressing my little brother. And most of what you posted is just hasbara.

Please note that the foregoing does not necessarily mean that all prominent Jewish supporters of Israel are, like Haim Saban, only interested in Israel. Obviously most will support other causes as well.

It does mean that as far as the Middle East is concerned only one point of view gets pushed.

hophmi, for decades both the media and national political leaders have been strongly pro-Israel. I used to look for direct connections to Israel among Jewish purchasers of media companies and Jewish major donors to political parties. I found them quite frequently. Often it wasn't simply a matter of vacationing in Israel or funding a college there, but leadership in a Zionist organization or proclaiming open support for Israel.

Please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, at least, because it won't work.

Year ago, before I was kicked off, a senior official of the Board of Deputies of British Jews used to haunt the Guardian I/P comments section, "helping" readers with explanations. I suspect she also kept the Guardian in shape behind the scense.

Following some really egregious moderating I posted:

Whatever happens, they have got
The Board of Deputies of British Jews
And you
Do not

Yonah, you may suppose that UNSC 242 is irrelevant today. It's certainly clear that Israel's leaders and many of its citizens would prefer the "move along, there's nothing to see hear" approach to this issue. But they are deluding themselves. Outside of the US, the world has not forgotten that Israel is violating the law. In the end Israel and the US will have to come to terms with this.

Based on my experience of my parents' siblings, if one of them worked closely with Jews on a subject close to his/her heart, that formed a bond that translated into fervent support for Israel. My family was liberal and Jews were, of course, leaders in liberal causes in the '40s, '50s and '60s.

Another factor is that in the '40s & '50s antisemitism was stronger than it is now; the Holocaust had just happened; and it was natural and fit for a liberal gentile to feel solidarity with Jews.

I especially appreciated Katie's question "Do you think people in our movement also suffer from ego-identification" and Rich's response. From a buddhist perspective, it's our own attitudes and emotions that do us the most damage.

Not only was wine produced in Palestine before the Zionists showed up, but many leaders in the resistance to Zionism have been or are Christian Palestinians. That includes not only Edward Said and Hanan Ashrawi, but resistance leaders like George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh who were far more militant than Arafat back in the day.

These random attacks on Israelis are an expression of bedrock despair. I sympathize very much with the attackers' frustration with decades of bitter oppression. Still, they are wrong, both morally due to the randomness and practically due to their counter-effectiveness.

The US is partly to blame for them, and as an American once more I feel ashamed.

I used to live in Boston and listened to Ashbrook before he went national. He has always been a lamebrain, particularly on this subject. Only in American would a public radio correspondent get away with this kind of stupidity.

Christians are probably 2% of the population in Israel. If a plurality of the big donors in Israel were Christian, and Israeli candidates pandered to them the way that US candidates pander to Israel, you'd see plenty of Israeli references to "f--ing Christians" on social media .

Beyond a certain degree stone –throwing becomes a real issue for those subject to it. In particular it can easily cause fatalities or injuries to children travelling in cars and buses

Please post the number of Israelis killed by stone-throwing together with the number of Palestinians killed for throwing stones. That will give some perspective on which side is being more brutal.

It always starts low key and tolerated, which is interpreted as am opportunity that should be further exploited so it becomes bigger until at some pint it passes limits. This was the case with the Intifada – first just stones or low-key shootings until it became a full-pledged terror war

The complete opposite is true. From B'Tselem, check out the tables for Fatalities in the First Intifada. During the first month (Dec 9-31, 1987), 24 Palestinians were killed by Israelis while no Israelis were killed by Palestinians.

From Wikipedia on the First Intifada:The IDF killed many Palestinians at the beginning of the Intifada, the majority killed during demonstrations and riots. Since initially a high proportion of those killed were civilians and youths, Yitzhak Rabin adopted a fallback policy of 'might, power and beatings'.

The Second Intifada started with Israeli police and troops showering Palestinian demonstrators with gunfire. From Wikipedia:During the first few days of riots, the IDF fired approximately 1.3 million bullets.[49] According to Amnesty International the early Palestinian casualties were those taking part in demonstrations or bystanders. Amnesty further states that approximately 80% of the Palestinians killed during the first month were in demonstrations where Israeli security services lives were not in danger.

Your legend is false. The fact that it's presented it here reflects right-wing Israeli biases and explains some of their behavior.

Pallywood is the equivalent of Jewywood? Please. The Palestinians are not a religion or an ethnic group. They’re a nationality. The equivalent term for the Israelis is hasbara, which you throw around here all the time.

James North has addressed this.

The reality is that this is all political theater

This is not just "political theatre" - these people are defending their land from illegal confiscation, something which Israel has been doing daily since 1967.

international activists do indeed encourage the kids not only to protest, but also to throw stones. (Followers of Gandian non-violence don’t throw stones, by the way.) That’s the problem with international activists – they not only call attention to the conflict; they take part in it and stoke it.

What international activists in Nabi Saleh encourage kids to throw stones? Where's the evidence?

And they do it from a position of privilege; if this were the US Army at an Iraqi checkpoint in 2005, Mohammed Tamimi would be dead right now.

Nabi Saleh is no comparison to an Iraqi checkpoint. All of the Israelis there know who Mohammed Tamimi is, and that he is not wearing a suicide belt. Killing Tamimi would be pure murder.

The Tamimi family has long used their children as tools for the their agenda, coaching them on what to say to journalists, sending them out there

Where is the evidence that the Tamimi children throw stones, let alone that their parents "send them out" to do it?

to endanger their lives by throwing stones.

What country threatens children with death for throwing stones?

The question is this: if Nabi Saleh wasn’t saturated with journalists, would these encounters happen? Probably not.

You're probably right there. Without the journalists Israel probably might well react with decisive brutality against those people who are defending their homes.

Why is Nabi Saleh saturated with journalists when, right next door to the West Bank, hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the world’s bloodiest conflict? Because covering Nabi Saleh is much easier than covering just about any other place in the Middle East right now, including Syria, where Palestinians actually are dying in droves.

Bad things are happening elsewhere in the Middle East. In no way does that justify Israel's behavior in Nabi Selah or anywhere else in the occupied territories.

You’re also fooling yourself if you think that this video is going to have some long shelf life; the last Ahed Tamimi viral video is barely remembered today.

If so, that's because Palestinian story is constantly being shoveled over by pro-Israeli journalism at the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post and other US media.

Most people understand that there is a conflict in the Middle East

Right, it's a "conflict in the Middle East", not Israel's longstanding campaign to dispossess Palestinians, which has been declared illegal by international bodies up to and including the UN Security Council.

unfortunately, that conflict hurts children on both sides, whether they are Mohammed Tamimi, or Daniel Traegerman, who never threw a single stone, and was murdered by mortar shell fired from Gaza.

Bring up the one Israeli child killed by a shell from Gaza last year, as opposed to the hundreds of Gazan children killed by Israel. Google Images features dozens of images of Danny. Good luck googling for pics of those hundreds of Palestinian kids.

Just a huge warning sign . . . turning the classroom into an anti-Israel podium – can cost you your teaching job.

The ruling said that University of Illinois's failure to hire Professor Salaita was a violation of freedom of speech. The "huge warning sign" is that if you "cost a professor his job" due to his views on Israel you could be up for hefty damages.

hophmi, I'm unable to reply directly to your post below where you say "No one disputes any of these things, Mooser", so I'll answer it here. The fact is that several of the things you say are disputed, while others just give one side of the picture. I'll go down the list:

It just denies that gay people exist . . . It’s official Iranian policy.
One person - President Ahmadinejad - said that gays "didn't exist". He very quickly clarified that to say he meant that they did not exist in such numbers as in the West. In no way can that off the cuff remark, since clarified, be turned into "official Iranian policy".

No. It just funds the Syria despot who has killed hundreds of thousands . . .
You know, there are other parties in Syria committing terrible atrocities in Syria, and have been from the beginning. These include Al-Qaeda allied groups supported by Israel.

It just helps fund and sustain Hezbollah, who essentially used it militia to take over Lebanon
The bloc containing Hezbollah as a political party regularly wins a plurality of the vote in Lebanon. Hezbollah's military is viewed as heroic and patriotic by many non-Shiite Lebanese for its serial defeats of Israel.

It’s just provoked the rebellion there against a government friendly to the United States
Nobody has adduced any evidence of this. Please don't quote the GOI.

It has funded Shiite militia there, though, and helped contributed to the sectarian governing philosophy of al-Maliki
The "sectarian governing philosophy" is unfortunately shared by most Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.

funding Hamas and supplying them with weapons which are used to target Israeli civilians, it’s definitely contributed to Gazan suffering.
Iranian funding of Hamas has tailed off to practically nothing. In any case, the world is aware that it's Israel that is primarily responsible for Gazan suffering. This is one fact that really is undisputed, outside of Israel and the Republican Party.

The reality is that given the collapse of so many Arab states in the region . . . there is simply no much choice anymore.

Gee, and just how did that happen?

If you look at the neocons' policies and their behavior when they had a chance to affect outcomes in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, it's hard to believe that their goal (and Israel's also) was to anything other than to fragment Arab nations and destroy their societies. To take one example, look at Douglas Feith and his painstaking preparations for the care of Iraq.

The point is power, catalan. Weiner could make that crack in the Times because she is a member of a privileged group. Do you think the Times would give a platform to an Amish guy to make jokes about Jews?

What was it someone said - Comedy is funny and brave when aimed at yourself or the powerful. It's lazy and cruel when aimed at the weak.

It's not a level playing field. That's what gets me. You don't notice because you take it for granted.

I am a fan of Ginsberg's poetry. What's more, I met him. He was really a wonderful person. Pace yonah, the photo does show how he looked in his later years. One of the things about Ginsberg was that he didn't try to hide much of anything.

I think it is apposite to quote Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s letter . . .

Oh, Sherman said that, but Ben-Gurion did it. There is a big difference. Furthermore, the conquest of Palestine was attended by numerous massacres of civilians, unlike Sherman's march to the sea. Finally, the South was defending slavery as well as their homes, while the Palestinians were just defending their homes.

The Jewish community will divide more and more clearly in the next year or so between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist ones. This open division will license politicians who depend on Jews (as donors, or as voters in blue states, or as an opinion-forming elite inside the Democratic Party) to divide themselves.

Phil, this would be more believable if we had evidence of major Jewish donors who truly support justice, as opposed to mere Liberal Zionists who dislike Netanyahu but oppose placing serious pressure on Israel. That would be a worthy subject for a thread.

The bipartisan consensus on Israel was much less strong 40 years ago than it is now. In the '60s and '70s there were senior administration officials (Dean Rusk, George Ball, James Baker), senators (Chuck Percy, William Fulbright), and even a President (Jimmy Carter) who were willing to be strongly critical of Israel.

It's my opinion that the bipartisan consensus was created by the carrots and sticks of the Israel lobby. Largely the sticks. All of the individuals above were hurt. The consensus has always had to be enforced.

In 1996 Mother Jones published something called the "Mojo 400", a list of the largest individual donors to both major parties. I took the time to analyze those top Democratic donors whose names were identifiably Jewish. Almost all of them had direct ties to Israel, either as members of major pro-Israel groups or as benefactors of Israeli causes. This is not a new phenomenon.

I first heard about the estimated share of national Democratic Party donations made by Jews around 1996, via JJ Goldberg. As a supporter of Palestinian rights I was stunned. I was even more shocked by the fact that this massive political reality and its massive foreign policy implications were mentioned nowhere by the mainstream media. This was enormous malfeasance, amounting to deliberate deception of the public.

This is related to a second massive reality regarding the media itself. Jewish supporters of Israel have for years constituted a very disproportionate share of publishers, editors and journalists in mainstream media. Given the pro-Israeli bias of US media, this is an in-your-face opportunity for investigation. Is it really credible to suppose that Abe Rosenthal's views on Israel had no effect on the New York Times' reporting during his 11 years as Executive Editor? How did Katharine Weymouth's Zionist background affect her stint as publisher of the Washington Post? There has never been a finger lifted to investigate these situations or many other similar ones. Again, the American public be damned.

Now you can apologize for being an asshole rather than phrasing that request politely.

JeffB, it is annoying that I can't reply to your post directly.

The saddest thing about your "evidence" is that apparently you can't tell how bogus it is. You muster just three examples from among the many scores of anti-American governments that have been around over the years. Of your three cases, Iran and Iraq only illustrate the public's being "sold on the need for war based upon trumped up charges, backed by fabricated evidence", as oldgeezer put it. We attacked Afghanistan only because it hosted Osama bin Laden, not because it had an anti-American government.

Your response confirms my original point about the quality of your argumentation. The bad language is just icing on the cake.

JeffB, thank you for the clarification. You have confirmed beyond all possible doubt that Israel and its supporters (such as yourself) have no respect whatsoever for international law, and so can't be called hypocrites for constantly violating it. Thanks for emphasizing that.

My link to the Pew survey shows what I said it shows - that a large majority of the American public supports the UN.

My point about whether the settlements are illegal is not "completely wrong". UNSCR 476 state that Israeli settlement "constitutes a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention". You use as an example of "no legal validity" a contract to sell someone the sun. This makes no sense at all as an analogy to Israel's concrete daily actions in the occupied territories.

Please provide a link to support your claim that "Hamas has a policy of trying to capture Israeli civilian hostages". From somewhere other than an Israeli propaganda site, please.

Applying a double standard would be flip out when other countries violate the UN security council and being unconcerned when Israel does it. It is not a double standard to be semi-indifferent or somewhat hostile to the UN across the board, which is what the vast majority of Israel’s supporters are.

What you really mean is, as former Israeli Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni put it, "I am against law – international law in particular". You express this by attacking those institutions which embody international law, such as the UN, because time and again they have decreed that Israeli settlement of territories conquered in 1967 is illegal.

Most of us - most people around the world, in fact - believe that international law matters and the UN should be respected. One of the saddest things about the US over the past two decades has been our slow adoption of Israel's attitude of contempt towards international law.

The UN Security council for example in 476 and 478 said that actions taken by Israel have no legal validity which is a substantially weaker claim then the acts being illegal. If you are going to be a sticker for the UN Security council then at least quote the council and not BDS fabrications.

This rivals Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". "Illegal" and "have no legal validity" mean the same thing. The UNSC resolutions condemning the settlements (including 476 & 478) reference the Fourth Geneva Convention as the basis of the law being violated. The suggestion that this is a "BDS fabrication" is wrong. Almost every nation in the world (including the US in UNSCR 476) has voted to condemn the settlements as settlements as illegal. So has every international body that has considered the issue.

if you are going to take the Geneva Convention seriously then one of the 4 grave breaches of the Geneva convention is taking civilian hostages. A matter of policy for Hamas.

I'm not sure what this means. If you're referring to so-called "human shields", could you please provide a reference from a reputable source that establishes that Hamas used civilians as human shields? The Goldstone Report did not make that claim. It did show that Israeli forces used Palestinians as human shields. The Wikipedia entry on Human Shields" is replete with substantiated accusations of Israelis using Palestinian civilians as human shields. This seems like a classic case of projection.

Actually, supporters of Israel can only defend the country by applying a double standard. What other nation has been allowed to go so long in blatant defiance of UN Security Council resolutions?

So Jeff, I believe that countries should be expected to respect UN Security Council resolutions. including the many that have pointed out that Israel's settlement of occupied territories (including Jerusalem) is illegal. These resolutions point out that Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention, law that should certainly "apply equally to all".

That's not a high bar for normal people. I'm happy we are in agreement here, Jeff. Who would have imagined?

This story is accompanied by a flood of virulently pro-Israel, reader-recommended comments. This is in vivid contrast to many recent stories about Israel where comments critical of Israel predominated. Is this a coincidence, or are the comments also part of a campaign to preempt criticism of coming Israeli attacks on civilian areas? It's possible I'm mistaken, but I suspect the latter.

What shameful garbage . . . it is disingenuous to claim that antisemitism on campus is “blowback” against students who exercised their First Amendment right to oppose divisive BDS and Israeli Apartheid Week programming on campus.

Speaking of shameful garbage, you fail to present any evidence at all of antisemitism on campus. Looking at the video of the interview with Beyda, it's clear to me that the interviewer, despite her mistaken use of the term "as a Jew", does not display any animus towards Beyda personally at all. To me it seems obvious that she was inquiring about Beyda's potential Zionist bias, which is understandable in the context of the attempts of Zionist groups around the world to criminalize criticism of Israel.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.

Sign up for Mondoweiss List

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.